Loomio
Wed 4 Sep 2013 9:44AM

Closing a proposal

DS Dean Satchell Public Seen by 123

Group rules are necessary. These should include rules around disruptive behaviour such as where a proposer refuses to close an untenable proposal.

CT

Chris Taklis Wed 4 Sep 2013 10:23AM

yes but then it will be confused for some members to discuss in 2 same-different discussions for the same topic.

DS

Dean Satchell Wed 4 Sep 2013 10:35AM

Easy enough to put a comment like "The proposer is making this discussion untenible, the discussion will be moved here and the proposal is now..."

DS

Dean Satchell Thu 5 Sep 2013 9:48AM

Okay... I'm thinking I might have to close the proposal or change it. But before I do that I'd like to understand better why intervention on a proposal is necessary. Some questions: @strypey, what if the proposer sees the block (or continued blocks) as going against the groups core values or a danger to the groups existence? Who is right, the blocker or the proposer? The blocker has more power for disruption than the proposer because the proposer can only seek a group decision. Could you give an example where simply stating that "This proposal goes against the group's core values (or a danger to group's existence) and I urge the group to vote no" would not be enough?
@christaklis should there be conditions when admin can intervene?
@raphaeljadot are you suggesting that the group decide or select before the discussion is created, conditions around how proposals can be closed?

CT

Chris Taklis Thu 5 Sep 2013 9:54AM

No and yes. Always it depends of how each group works.

For example in our group it will be needed to interfere the coordinator when it is against our constitution or our values.

But in other group maybe it would be a unique coordinator which has power from the members to act as he/she think is the right.

RJ

Raphaël Jadot Thu 5 Sep 2013 10:05AM

@deansatchell I was about to tell more or less the same think as @christaklis :)

DS

Dean Satchell Fri 6 Sep 2013 11:20AM

In my mind admin should have administrative powers only. A bit like a secretary at a board meeting, a neutral party, no vote, no involvement.... implementing rules only. By giving admin unlimited power to close proposals the democratic process could be disrupted and cause grievances. I'd like to know when a group that has rules in place needs someone (a "co-ordinator") in charge. Under what circumstances is there need for interference? Someone just needs to state "This goes against the groups constitution and rules" if that is what is happening. Worst case the proposer is disruptive and refuses to close, so the group sets up a discussion to vote on kicking them out as per the rules. Then admin acts (as a neutral party). Only if admin is given this specific role and power in the rules though.